ENEA2030 Proposal Falls Short

MARE calls for substantial revision of ENEA 2030, warning that the current proposal lacks targets, implementation mechanisms and the real conditions needed to drive social transformation.

MARE submitted its contribution to the public consultation on the National Strategy for Environmental Education 2030 (ENEA2030), flagging several structural weaknesses in the document, including the absence of clear targets, lack of operationalization mechanisms, absence of an impact assessment, and a reliance on an institutional logic that does little to mobilize action.

The MARE and ARNET working group that prepared the document brought together researchers from NOVA FCT (Lia Vasconcelos, Filipa Ferreira and Isabel Abreu dos Santos), the University of Évora (Zara Teixeira), the Faculty of Sciences of the University of Lisbon (Vera Sequeira and Maria João Correia), the Polytechnic Institute of Beja (Albertina Raposo) and MARE-ULisboa (Adelaide Ferreira), in response to the plan that was open for public consultation until 16 June. The main findings are concerning, as they reveal that the document does not have the conditions to function as an instrument of social transformation, with insufficient information identified regarding implementation, funding, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. "As it stands, the ENEA 2030 proposal risks remaining in a drawer, far from the political agenda and from people's real lives," the researchers warn.

MARE acknowledges that the strategy addresses fundamental topics such as climate, water, the ocean, ecosystems, the circular economy and the protection of people, but warns that no priorities are defined, nor are there clear mechanisms for operationalization. "Of the 21 proposed measures, none identifies those responsible, timelines, budgets, funding sources or evaluation indicators," reducing the measures to "mere intentions rather than commitments."

Among the main points of concern, MARE highlights the lack of articulation between ENEA 2020 and the new ENEA 2030; the insufficient integration of scientific research in the formulation, monitoring and evaluation of the strategy; the absence of explicit recognition of the role of research centers, associate laboratories, science centers, museums and other collectives as collaborators; the lack of operational cross-cutting between thematic axes and any reference to environmental disinformation and critical digital literacy; the absence of a framework aligned with the Convention on Biological Diversity 2050; the lack of explicit methodology in public participation processes; and, overall, the absence of a model linking actions, expected transformation and real impact.

Agenda 2030 is a reference point, not a deadline

Among the limitations identified, the timeframe stands out. With an expected start in 2027, the strategy is effectively reduced to three years of implementation, which is manifestly insufficient to set robust targets, operationalize sustained actions, and ensure rigorous monitoring and evaluation.

The researchers acknowledge the relevance of aligning with the Sustainable Development Goals and the 2030 Agenda, but stress that the National Strategy should ensure continuity beyond 2030. Behavioral change, curricular transformation and consolidation require extended timeframes, typically between 8 and 12 years, meaning the proposed deadline would only represent a first step in that direction, without producing lasting impact. "Limiting the strategy to three years reduces its relevance, weakens its transformative capacity and prevents rigorous evaluation," the researchers argue.

MARE recommends reformulating the strategy with a minimum horizon of 10 years. Extending the timeframe would provide strategic stability aligned with national governance cycles and international agendas, enable phased planning with credible and sustained monitoring and evaluation, and strengthen the capacity to mobilize and coordinate partnerships.

Science as a principle, but left out in practice

One of the central concerns relates to the role assigned to science in the proposal. ENEA 2030 sets out a "principle of knowledge and science," yet treats science merely as content to be transmitted, rather than as a foundation that guides decisions, monitors progress and evaluates outcomes independently. A strategy not grounded in evidence risks continuously reproducing ineffective approaches.

To address this, MARE proposes the creation of a permanent advisory group to support ENEA, with diverse representation including R&D units and associate laboratories, environmental NGOs, local authorities, educational institutions and science communicators. The group would contribute to selecting evidence-based interventions, validating impact indicators and conducting independent, rigorous evaluation of the strategy.

"ENEA has largely remained at a theoretical level."

Experience from recent years shows that ENEA has faced significant difficulties in putting its theoretical plan into practice, remaining "distant from the people and communities it aims to transform." The gap between rhetoric and reality has a concrete cause: the document does not address the fact that people, more than wanting to be informed, want to know what to do with that information.

For the researchers, ENEA should move away from its overly formal approach and engage with schools, social media, public spaces, communities and the media in a cross-cutting, dynamic, creative and conscious way. Initiatives should be continuous, larger in scale, emotionally engaging and grounded in a coherent national narrative capable of speaking to everyone.

If young people are on social media, why aren't we there with them?

"Young people cannot be treated merely as a target audience," the researchers argue. The document highlights a progressive disengagement of young people from environmental issues, at a time when the country needs their energy, creativity and capacity to look towards the future in a positive way.

In response, MARE argues that an excessively institutional, technical, abstract and distant discourse, actions without visible consequences, weakened trust in institutions and the underuse of social media do not resonate with young people. On the contrary, they contribute to a lack of emotional identification, frustration and disengagement.

"Participation cannot be symbolic; it must have real consequences," the Working Group argues. Young people must be co-authors of the strategy, with genuine space to create, decide and evaluate, and not merely recipients of messages that fail to engage them.

ENEA needs to leave the drawer and enter people's lives

The team believes that environmental education should be a living culture, not merely a chapter in the national strategy. For ENEA 2030 to have a real effect on environmental literacy, public participation and the capacity for action in Portuguese society, MARE recommends it be strengthened with a longer timeframe of at least ten years, clear and measurable targets, defined responsibilities and multi-year funding, independent impact assessment mechanisms, effective integration of science and of those working on the ground, making use of opportunities such as educational responses to environmental emergencies, and genuine intergenerational participation from all civil society actors.

"ENEA 2030 has the potential to be a transformative instrument. But for that, it needs targets, resources, continuity, media presence and social relevance. It needs to leave the drawer and enter people's lives," the MARE Working Group underlines.

MARE calls for a substantial revision of the proposal, incorporating contributions from all stakeholders, towards a more robust and transparent strategy that rises to the country's environmental challenges, and for the design of a comprehensive strategy capable of ensuring the operationalization and implementation of initiatives that resonate beyond 2030.